1. Sita Hembram, aged about 43 years, wife of Jaisen Hembram, resident of Milatnagar v. …
Case Details
1 Cr.M.P. No. 4486 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 4486 of 2022 1. Sita Hembram, aged about 43 years, wife of Jaisen Hembram, resident of Milatnagar, Kapali, Post- Kapali, P.S.- Chandil, District- Seraikella- Kharsawan 2. Tahir Ali, aged about 46 years, son of Taz Mohammad, resident of Milatnagar, Kapali, Post- Kapali, P.S.- Chandil, District- Seraikella- Kharsawan 3. Nasim Khan, aged about 24 years, son of Jumrati Khan, resident of Goushnagar, Dobo, Post- Kapali, P.S.- Chandil, District- Seraikella- Kharsawan Versus …... Petitioners 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Abdul Shahid Ansari, son of Abdul Majeed Ansari, resident of 51, Gousnagar, Post-Kapali, P.S.- Chandil, Distirct- Seraikella- Kharsawan ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No. 2
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Adv. : Mr. B.N.Ojha, Addl..PP : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Adv. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with the Chandil P.S. case no. 252 of 2022 registered under Section 341, 323, 324, 406, 420, 504, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code pending in the court of SDJM, Chandil on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 jointly draw attention of this court to the Annexure 2, which is the copy of the certified copy of the joint compromise petition filed by the parties in the court of learned SDJM, Chandil. It is next submitted by learned counsels that since both the parties have settled their dispute outside the court with the intervention of their relatives and their well –wishers and 2 Cr.M.P. No. 4486 of 2022 peaceful relationship has been restored between the parties as both the parties are from the same locality. It is then jointly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that since compromise has been effected to between the parties amicably, hence, continuation of the criminal proceeding in connection with Chandil P.S. case no. 252 of 2022 will amount to abuse of the process of the court and no purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceeding after compromise have been entered into between the parties. It is further submitted that the dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute regarding payment of money, hence, it is jointly submitted that the entire criminal proceedings in connection with the Chandil P.S. case no. 252 of 2022 be quashed. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no serious objection to the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in view of compromise between the parties. 5. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme court of India in the case Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 had the occasion to consider the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure inter alia on the basis of compromise between the parties and has held in paragraph no.11 as under :- 11. Section 482 is prefaced with an overriding provision. The statute saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In Gian Singh [Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 988] a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court adverted to the body of precedent on the subject and laid down guiding principles which the High Court should consider in determining as to whether to quash an FIR or complaint in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction. The considerations which must weigh with the High Court are : (SCC pp. 342-43, para 61) “61. … the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a 3 Cr.M.P. No. 4486 of 2022 criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this case are not heinous offences nor they are offences of mental depravity rather the same has resulted from a dispute regarding payment of money between the petitioner and opposite party no.2. Because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and 4 Cr.M.P. No. 4486 of 2022 prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 7. In view of the submission made at the Bar jointly by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as the certified copy of the compromise petition, kept at Annexure 2 of the brief, this court is satisfied that the parties have amicably resolved their entire dispute and thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding and the continuance of criminal proceeding would tantamount to the abuse of the process of court and in the interest of justice, it is appropriate that the entire criminal proceeding in connection with the Chandil P.S. case no. 252 of 2022 registered under Section 341, 323, 324, 406, 420, 504, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code pending in the court of SDJM, Chandil be put to an end. 8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of in connection with the Chandil P.S. case no. 252 of 2022 registered under Section 341, 323, 324, 406, 420, 504, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code pending in the court of SDJM, Chandil is quashed and set aside. 9.
Decision
In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 17th April, 2023 Smita /AFR (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)